(05-24-2012, 07:18 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:

(05-24-2012, 07:14 PM)ShinAr Wrote: We all know what is right and wrong.

Ya think so? I'm not so sure. Many don't even think there is such a thing as 'right and wrong' - they think those are antiquated concepts.

Quote:1.6 Questioner: (The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.)

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

May we enunciate this law in more detail?

4.20 Questioner: My objective is primarily to discover more of the Law of One, and [it would] be very helpful to discover techniques of healing. I am aware of your problem with respect to free will. Can you make… You cannot make suggestions. I will ask you if you can state the Law of One and the laws of healing to me?

Ra: I am Ra. The Law of One, though beyond the limitations of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

One of the primal distortions of the Law of One is that of healing. Healing occurs when a mind/body/spirit complex realizes, deep within itself, the Law of One; that is, that there is no disharmony, no imperfection; that all is complete and whole and perfect. Thus, the intelligent infinity within this mind/body/spirit complex re-forms the illusion of body, mind, or spirit to a form congruent with the Law of One. The healer acts as energizer or catalyst for this completely individual process.

One item which may be of interest is that a healer asking to learn must take the distortion understood as responsibility for that ask/receiving, thus healing. This is a honor/duty which must be carefully considered in free will before the asking.

54.13 Questioner: OK. Then I assume that the first distortion is the, shall I say, motivator or what allows this blockage. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. We wish no quibbling but prefer to avoid the use of terms such as the verb, to allow. Free will does not allow, nor would predetermination disallow, experiential distortions. Rather the Law of Confusion offers a free reach for the energies of each mind/body/spirit complex. The verb, to allow, would be considered pejorative in that it suggests a polarity between right and wrong or allowed and not allowed. This may seem a minuscule point. However, to our best way of thinking it bears some weight.

Quote:77.17 Questioner: Now, would it be possible for this work of our density to be performed if all of the sub-Logoi chose the same polarity in any particular expression or evolution of a Logos? Let us make the assumption that our sun created nothing but, through the first distortion, nothing— there was no product except positive polarity. Would work then be done in fourth density and higher as a function only of this positive polarization evolving from our original creation of sub-Logos?

Ra: I am Ra. Elements of this query illustrate the reason I was unable to answer your previous question without knowledge of the Logos involved. To turn to your question, there were Logoi which chose to set the plan for the activation of mind/body/spirit complexes through each true-color body without recourse to the prior application of [free will. It is, to our knowledge, only in an absence of free will that the conditions of which you speak obtain. In such a] procession of densities you find an extraordinarily long, as you measure time, third density; likewise, fourth density. Then, as the entities begin to see the Creator, there is a very rapid, as you measure time, procession towards the eighth density. This is due to the fact that one who knows not, cares not.

Let us illustrate by observing the relative harmony and unchanging quality of existence in one of your, as you call it, primitive tribes. The entities have the concepts of lawful and taboo, but the law is inexorable and all events occur as predestined. There is no concept of right and wrong, good or bad. It is a culture in monochrome. In this context you may see the one you call Lucifer as the true light-bringer in that the knowledge of good and evil both precipitated the mind/body/spirits of this Logos from the Edenic conditions of constant contentment but also provided the impetus to move, to work and to learn.

Those Logoi whose creations have been set up without free will have not, in the feeling of those Logoi, given the Creator the quality and variety of experience of Itself as have those Logoi which have incorporated free will as paramount. Thusly you find those Logoi moving through the timeless states at what you would see as a later space/time to choose the free will character when elucidating the foundations of each Logos.

99.10 Questioner: In that case I will just ask one additional short question as we terminate for this session. May I ask if the Logos of this system planned for the mating process as possibly depicted in Card Six — I don’t know if this is related — by some type of DNA imprinting as has been studied by our science. In many second-density creatures seem to have some sort of imprinting that creates a lifetime mating relationship and I was wondering if this was designed by the Logos for that particular mechanism and if it was also carried into third density?

Ra: I am Ra. There are some of your second-density fauna which have instinctually imprinted monogamous mating processes. The third-density physical vehicle which is the basic incarnational tool of manifestation upon your planet arose from entities thusly imprinted, all the aforesaid being designed by the Logos.

The free will of third-density entities is far stronger than the rather mild carryover from second-density DNA encoding and it is not part of the conscious nature of many of your mind/body/spirit complexes to be monogamous due to the exercise of free will. However, as has been noted there are many signposts in the deep mind indicating to the alert adept the more efficient use of catalyst. As we have said, the Logos of your peoples has a bias towards kindness.

(05-24-2012, 09:55 PM)Patrick Wrote: If the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong is innate, then where does it come from?

(05-24-2012, 10:09 PM)Pickle Wrote:
Well i guess there really is no point to guides or guidance now is there?

(05-24-2012, 10:10 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:

(05-24-2012, 09:55 PM)Patrick Wrote: If the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong is innate, then where does it come from?

It's relative, according to which path one has chosen (STS or STO).

(05-24-2012, 10:12 PM)TheFifty9Sound Wrote: On the subject of right and wrong, I'd like to throw this into the mix. In my current bible study, I have come to the conclusion that this passage might be the most misunderstood concept in the NT.

Matthew 16:19
"And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven."

This is interpreted as Jesus literally giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and the authority to decide what is right and wrong. But I read it a completely different way. To me it's like Jesus is saying, "I'll give you the key concept to understanding the Kingdom of Heaven", like "The Key to the puzzle is.."

If you were to entertain this as truth, right and wrong is decided by each individual deep within their own heart of hearts. It exists only within our own consciousness, according to our own biases. It's innate and it's intuition. We know when we're doing wrong because it goes against our intuition. We feel remorse for actions. We feel stressed, uneasy. We know when we're doing right because we feel light, easy and.. Well, right!

(05-24-2012, 10:16 PM)Patrick Wrote: It's relative only to our polarity then ?

(05-24-2012, 10:16 PM)Patrick Wrote: I would say that you're right! But if you're right, then I may be the only one who believes you are right. Others may know deep down that you're wrong.

(05-24-2012, 11:34 PM)TheFifty9Sound Wrote: Exactly. We are all responsible for defining our own realities.

(05-24-2012, 11:34 PM)TheFifty9Sound Wrote:

(05-24-2012, 10:16 PM)Patrick Wrote: I would say that you're right! But if you're right, then I may be the only one who believes you are right. Others may know deep down that you're wrong.

Exactly. We are all responsible for defining our own realities.

(05-24-2012, 11:56 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:

(05-24-2012, 11:34 PM)TheFifty9Sound Wrote: Exactly. We are all responsible for defining our own realities.

So do you think we can redefine the criteria of graduation to 4D?

(05-25-2012, 12:19 AM)TheFifty9Sound Wrote: When you say the word "criteria", it brings to my mind the concept of.. a checklist. And my understanding is it doesn't work quite like that.

(05-25-2012, 12:19 AM)TheFifty9Sound Wrote: The concept of right and wrong, as I said earlier is all relative to our values and morals. Right and wrong is not a tangible thing. Our actions can thrown into either category depending on the viewpoint of the individual. However, it is only the intention of the individual performing that action that counts towards their graduation to 4D.

For example, a patient might be critically ill with cancer, and very much desire euthanasia. One doctor might accept these demands out of compassion and put the patent out of his misery. In giving the patient the most dignified possible death for himself and his family, he has chalked up a STO act and taken steps towards being harvestable.

Another doctor might accept these same demands, but without any compassion in his heart, but instead thinking "He's going to die anyway, it'll shorten my rounds. I won't have to worry about him anymore", and is more concerned with the mechanics of having the patient gone, and making his own life easier.

Both doctors could theoretically take the same action on the same patient, but it depends on what is in their hearts as to whether or not it will get them any closer to being harvestable to 4D.

This is how I see it.

(05-25-2012, 12:19 AM)TheFifty9Sound Wrote: The concept of right and wrong, as I said earlier is all relative to our values and morals. Right and wrong is not a tangible thing.

(05-25-2012, 02:09 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:

(05-25-2012, 12:19 AM)TheFifty9Sound Wrote: When you say the word "criteria", it brings to my mind the concept of.. a checklist. And my understanding is it doesn't work quite like that.

Is your understanding based on the Law of One? Do you disagree with Ra, or are you saying you disagree with my interpretation of Ra's words about the criteria for graduation to 4D?

(05-25-2012, 02:09 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:

(05-25-2012, 12:19 AM)TheFifty9Sound Wrote: The concept of right and wrong, as I said earlier is all relative to our values and morals. Right and wrong is not a tangible thing. Our actions can thrown into either category depending on the viewpoint of the individual. However, it is only the intention of the individual performing that action that counts towards their graduation to 4D.

For example, a patient might be critically ill with cancer, and very much desire euthanasia. One doctor might accept these demands out of compassion and put the patent out of his misery. In giving the patient the most dignified possible death for himself and his family, he has chalked up a STO act and taken steps towards being harvestable.

Another doctor might accept these same demands, but without any compassion in his heart, but instead thinking "He's going to die anyway, it'll shorten my rounds. I won't have to worry about him anymore", and is more concerned with the mechanics of having the patient gone, and making his own life easier.

Both doctors could theoretically take the same action on the same patient, but it depends on what is in their hearts as to whether or not it will get them any closer to being harvestable to 4D.

This is how I see it.

I agree. But do we disagree that Ra indicated a certain percentage of green ray activation (love/compassion/Service to Others) is necessary for graduation?

Thus, as I see it, 'wrong' is defined as simply that which interferes with polarizing to the desired polarity.

For an entity desiring to polarize STO, knowingly causing the suffering of another being would be classified as wrong; ie. depolarizing. The very same action might be 'right,' ie. polarizing, for an STS entity.

(05-25-2012, 02:21 AM)Pickle Wrote:

(05-25-2012, 12:19 AM)TheFifty9Sound Wrote: The concept of right and wrong, as I said earlier is all relative to our values and morals. Right and wrong is not a tangible thing.

Pain sucks. Misery and suffering sucks. That is, if you happen to be in the position to experience it.

If you were to come back in 10, 30, 50, or even a 100 years after you die, what would you change in this moment for your future existence?

What would you do to prepare the way for your next ride?

Is there a right and wrong way to setup shop? Are you willing to make every single mistake and experience every single pain all over again? Or are you willing to ensure that you do not go through all of the same mistakes again?

-----------
This may be easier understood if you had done work on your geneology, and understood that removing just a single link in your lineage would most likely remove you as well. Just take a few steps back and imagine yourself to be in a position higher up in the tree, and look at how many people under that one have shaped the history you experience now. You are in that position to create the future.

Let's say you bring about laws that govern how you will be treated later. (Martin Luther King) Let's say you nuke the landscape so that certain plant life no longer exist, and your return goes through a deficiency making you allergic to sunlight. Let's say you are in a lab and create a biogerm that shortens attention spans permanently, and the population becomes permanently changed.

Do morals fit into this picture or does logical thought fit better? Are you creating the future with morals or rational thought?

I think religion tried to create using morals. And it looks like theosophists tried to create using logic. I think religion failed, many of them can't wait for the rapture to take them away from what they created.

(05-25-2012, 02:09 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: For an entity desiring to polarize STO, knowingly causing the suffering of another being would be classified as wrong; ie. depolarizing.

(05-25-2012, 03:47 AM)TheFifty9Sound Wrote: I always go back to this Tom Robbins quote -

If you believe in peace, act peacefully; if you believe in love, act lovingly; if you believe in every which way, then act in every which way, that's perfectly valid- but don't go out trying to sell your beliefs to the System. You end up contradicting what you profess to believe in, and you set a bum example. If you want to change the world, change yourself.

Quote:...The first food of man was herbs; after the flood he had an allowance of the flesh of beasts, without distinction; under the Levitical dispensation, a difference of meats was enjoined to be observed; the laws respecting that distinction are now abolished, and not binding on us under the Gospel dispensation. Some scruples, about some of these things, did arise among the first Christians; but in process of time these difficulties were got over: nor is there any religion in abstinence from any sort of food; men, indeed, on a "physical" account, ought to be careful what they eat and drink, but not on a religious one; moderation in all ought to be used; and whatever is ate or drank, should be received with thankfulness, and done to the glory of God, and then no defilement can arise from hence:

but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. It is sin, and that only, which takes its rise from the heart, lies in thought, and is either expressed by the mouth, or performed by some outward action, which defiles the man, and renders him loathsome, abominable, and odious in the sight of God. The heart is the source of all evil; the pollution of it is very early, and very general, reaching to all the powers and faculties of the soul; which shows the ignorance of some, and folly of others, that talk of, and trust to the goodness of their hearts; and also the necessity of new hearts and right spirits being formed and created; and that the sinful thoughts of the heart, and the lusts thereof, are defiling to men; and that they are sinful in God's account, and abominable in his sight; that they are loathsome to sensible sinners, and are to be repented of, and forsaken by them; and need the pardoning grace of God or otherwise will be brought into judgment. Sinful words, which, through the abundance of wickedness in the heart, come out of the mouth, have the same influence and effect: words are of a defiling nature; with these men pollute both themselves and others: the tongue, though a little member, defiles the whole body; and evil and corrupt communication proceeding out of the mouth, corrupts the best of manners, and renders men loathsome to God, and liable to his awful judgment. And this is the nature of all sinful actions; they are what God can take no pleasure in; they are disagreeable, to a sensible mind; they leave a stain, which can never be removed by any thing the creature can do; nothing short of the blood of Christ can cleanse from it; and inasmuch as they are frequently committed, there is need of continual application to it. These are now the things men should be concerned about, as of a defiling nature; and not about meats and drinks, and the manner of using them, whether with hands washed, or unwashed...

(05-25-2012, 03:47 AM)TheFifty9Sound Wrote: ...
(I should mention, I didn't read the first 12 pages of this thread, and I'm not sure how this relates to the original topic. Sorry if I've played a part in derailing this thread! )

(05-25-2012, 09:25 AM)Patrick Wrote: Matthew 15-11: "It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth."

- Could anyone help me understand this ?

(05-25-2012, 09:52 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:

(05-25-2012, 09:25 AM)Patrick Wrote: Matthew 15-11: "It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth."

- Could anyone help me understand this ?

This quote, attributed to Jesus both in the canonical gospel of Matthew, as well as in Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, is in itself quite unambiguous.

However, in some of the Essene texts, many quotes about "defilement by food" are also attributed to Jesus.

So- who can really say?

But according to my understanding and belief, the notion of "defilement by food" is a manipulation which originated with Zoroastrianism, the philosophy of which divided up the world into the "righteous" and the "wicked". It's an interesting concept, but at its root is divisive. If for nothing else because nobody can seem to ever agree upon which foods are "defiling" and which are not.

(05-25-2012, 10:02 AM)Patrick Wrote:

(05-25-2012, 09:52 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:

(05-25-2012, 09:25 AM)Patrick Wrote: Matthew 15-11: "It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth."

- Could anyone help me understand this ?

This quote, attributed to Jesus both in the canonical gospel of Matthew, as well as in Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, is in itself quite unambiguous.

However, in some of the Essene texts, many quotes about "defilement by food" are also attributed to Jesus.

So- who can really say?

But according to my understanding and belief, the notion of "defilement by food" is a manipulation which originated with Zoroastrianism, the philosophy of which divided up the world into the "righteous" and the "wicked". It's an interesting concept, but at its root is divisive. If for nothing else because nobody can seem to ever agree upon which foods are "defiling" and which are not.

Thank you my friend !

- So without judgments there can be no right and there can be no wrong?

Shin'Ar mentioned that we all knew deeply what was right and what was wrong.

- Is this deep knowledge the same for all ?

- Who judged what was right and what was wrong and put this deep into our hearts ?

Quote:Ra: I am Ra. The proper role of the entity is in this density to experience all things desired, to then analyze, understand, and accept these experiences, distilling from them the love/light within them. Nothing shall be overcome. That which is not needed falls away.

The orientation develops due to analysis of desire. These desires become more and more distorted towards conscious application of love/light as the entity furnishes itself with distilled experience. We have found it to be inappropriate in the extreme to encourage the overcoming of any desires, except to suggest the imagination rather than the carrying out in the physical plane, as you call it, of those desires not consonant with the Law of One; this preserving the primal distortion of free will.

The reason it is unwise to overcome is that overcoming is an unbalanced action creating difficulties in balancing in the time/space continuum. Overcoming thus creates the further environment for holding onto that which apparently has been overcome.

All things are acceptable in the proper time for each entity, and in experiencing, in understanding, in accepting, in then sharing with other-selves, the appropriate description shall be moving away from distortions of one kind to distortions of another which may be more consonant with the Law of One.

It is, shall we say, a shortcut to simply ignore or overcome any desire. It must instead be understood and accepted. This takes patience and experience which can be analyzed with care, with compassion for self and for other-self.

(05-25-2012, 11:24 AM)TheEternal Wrote: "So what does that say about the human who has, and yet still cares more about his 'animal' than his humanity?"

I would, perhaps, attach on to this, those who care for animals, but not for humanity? We find it oh so easy to love innocence, which we apply to animals, but can we accept the capacities of our total self, that is aware, and perhaps not always wholesome?

(05-25-2012, 11:57 AM)ShinAr Wrote: The human Being, as a process of the evolving All, evolves based upon their discrimination of opposites and the choices they make around such discrimination.

Whether the innocence of the animal consciousness, or the morality of the human consciousness, evolution is revealed in deliberation of knowledge. Choosing, knowing and acting.

(05-25-2012, 11:57 AM)ShinAr Wrote: The human Being, as a process of the evolving All, evolves based upon their discrimination of opposites and the choices they make around such discrimination.

Quote:I would just not want someone to misinterpret your words to mean that if we accept that we can by nature also be evil, that simple understanding of that makes evil suddenly a good thing, or creates a situation where there is no real aspect of difference between good and evil.

(05-25-2012, 12:14 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Shin'Ar . . . But if I may ask, you appear to be reiterating this point over and over again in multiple threads. What's the hangup about, web-friend?

(05-25-2012, 01:20 PM)Diana Wrote:

(05-25-2012, 12:14 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Shin'Ar . . . But if I may ask, you appear to be reiterating this point over and over again in multiple threads. What's the hangup about, web-friend?

Every member here has his or her view and perspective; their own particular concerns and wisdom. I see no difference between Shin'Ar's contribution to a particular subject and others.' Why see it as a hangup; or conversely, we all have "hangups" so why single this one out? I, myself, repeat certain understandings I have over and over, and I have seen do the same. Let's let Shin'Ar do the same without having to defend himself so much, and debate the concepts rather than the person.

The question of defining what "evil" constitutes for him is efficacious to the discussion, although I thought he made that clear. Perhaps it is only the unfortunate connotation from the religious texts that is ruffling feathers; and the word, evil, has an emotional charge not desired when one is seeking acceptance of all things.

(05-25-2012, 12:02 PM)TheEternal Wrote: It's the realization that change happens regardless of need that detaches one from the need to try and "control" the forces of good and evil.

Also, in my view, there is nothing that is "in need of change", as the very idea is completely redundant. Everything is constantly changing, so of course there is no "need" for it, it is inevitable. I strongly believe in the concept within Dzogchen of all things being self-perfected.

(05-25-2012, 01:24 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Why not allow Shin'Ar to speak for himself? He's a big boy, and he's not under attack. Thus, he does not need to be defended by you.

(05-25-2012, 01:43 PM)Diana Wrote: Shin'Ar may certainly speak for himself. I wasn't defending him, I was responding to a certain kind of question asked which points to persons ("hangup") rather than concepts.